Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 158 159 [160] 161 162 ... 211

Author Topic: Future of the Fortress  (Read 706650 times)

Shonai_Dweller

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #2385 on: September 03, 2017, 04:56:03 am »

Since I am writing a book about dwarves right now, and music has a pretty big part in it, I had to ask:

Is there any possibility of clarifying the randomly generated musical instruments? So far if I want to build or buy some instruments, I have to go through a bit painful process of reading through what each instrument is and what it does. I mean, that is fun and kinda cool, but I would like it a lot if for example there was a (wind), or (string) tag in front of the random name. Would be much quicker and clearer in my opinion.

Lime green for questions.
Logged

Killermartian

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #2386 on: September 03, 2017, 06:04:02 am »

With the addition of expeditions, will you be able to send squads out to civs your at war with to negotiate a treaty?
Logged

Shonai_Dweller

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #2387 on: September 03, 2017, 06:13:08 am »

With the addition of expeditions, will you be able to send squads out to civs your at war with to negotiate a treaty?
Civs go to war with each other. Individual site wars are much rarer. So negotiating treaties would likely to be up to the mountainhome, not your single fortress.

In the current version, only the diplomat has the [make_peace_agreements] tag, and that's a civ position, not a site one.

Expansions to gameplay for after the king arrives and you become the mountainhome is probably part of the Scenarios release in several years.

Dev notes page explains what this release contains.
http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/dev.html
« Last Edit: September 03, 2017, 06:28:54 am by Shonai_Dweller »
Logged

Shonai_Dweller

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #2388 on: September 05, 2017, 06:54:58 am »

Is it the state of war itself that will cancel your siege safety triggers, or just war caused directly by player meddling (squads)? Will that status carry over into your next fortress if you play the same civ (and the war hasn't yet been resolved)?

The first might make for some Fun embarks, and not completely unfair since you are warned in advance if you're at war with anyone.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2017, 06:56:38 am by Shonai_Dweller »
Logged

PatrikLundell

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #2389 on: September 05, 2017, 07:59:55 am »

With the current logic pre existing war does not circumvent the siege triggers, so my guess is that nothing is being done to change that. Also note that the retaliatory siege trigger overriding attacks are directed at the offending site, not any random site belonging to the civ. (Possible bug report: "I embarked while at peace with the elves". In the autumn the diplomat came by and told me about a daring artifact raid by a neighbor site, and in winter my fortress was razed by a full scale elven siege"). In my view the only way to get sieged prematurely should be to either bring it in yourself through raids, or by resuming or reclaiming (with reclaiming being dubious) a fortress that already is involved in a site level conflict. It would be useful to get this cleared up by Toady, though.
Logged

Shonai_Dweller

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #2390 on: September 05, 2017, 08:47:52 am »

With the current logic pre existing war does not circumvent the siege triggers, so my guess is that nothing is being done to change that. Also note that the retaliatory siege trigger overriding attacks are directed at the offending site, not any random site belonging to the civ. (Possible bug report: "I embarked while at peace with the elves". In the autumn the diplomat came by and told me about a daring artifact raid by a neighbor site, and in winter my fortress was razed by a full scale elven siege"). In my view the only way to get sieged prematurely should be to either bring it in yourself through raids, or by resuming or reclaiming (with reclaiming being dubious) a fortress that already is involved in a site level conflict. It would be useful to get this cleared up by Toady, though.
Toady already said a month or so back that harrasment causes full-scale civ on civ war, not single site on site conflict. So, yeah, if you get that elf report from the diplomat, expect an invasion soon (although npcs probably don't send harassment squads yet).
Logged

GoblinCookie

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #2391 on: September 05, 2017, 10:39:05 am »

Culture would also factor into this, so I'd say it would actually be less realistic to have no prejudices at all - for example, lets say we have two groups - group A values martial prowess and doesn't particularly care about peace, leisure time or nature - whereas group B highly values knowledge, nature, peace and leisure time but doesn't particularly care about martial prowess. I highly doubt the groups wouldn't have prejudices about each other - with members of group A seeing the majority of group B as decadent, weak whelps, and group B seeing the majority of group A as violent, ignorant barbarians.
Even if they weren't engaged in outright war, I don't believe members of either group would treat members of the other fairly - higher prices for goods, etc. - unless they proved themselves in some way to their society.

Culture would factor into this, well we are talking about culture. :)

If the other group *are* violent, ignorant barbarians then it is not racism as such to work on the assumption that any  members of that group when they arrive will behave as such until proven otherwise.  A racist however *cannot* be proven otherwise, because the racist derives the barbaric nature of the other from the appearance of the creature, meaning they simply refuse to take seriously any evidence to the contrary, clinging to their initial prejudice; the stronger the racism so to speak the more evidence is needed.  For example, if we have a goblin civilization that tends to fight with a human civilization with white skins but also babysnatches from a black-skinned human civilization which has little contact with the white skinned one, the white skinned human civilization will initially treat all goblins with suspicion but also treat black-skinned humans with equal suspicion.  If one of the black skinned folks was however to turns up and join one of the sites of the white-skinned civilization then we would see whether they racist or not.  If they were racist they would treat such an individual with suspicion, while if they were not racist they would be fine with them once they realized that they came from the other human civilization not the goblin one. 

On the prejudice side of things . . . as long as there's no absolute trends, there isn't an issue. Don't tie prejudice just to species or color. Add in all kinds of prejudiced traits, both physical and mental. And give high speakers the ability to change peoples' minds about said prejudice. It's only when you make something highly likely to happen that it becomes a problem. Heck, give these prejudices a logical underpinning, even. I'm sure the original cases of racism back when we were all primitives stemmed from competition for resources. The modern stuff came from a lot of different sources, depending on where you are. The Southern style in the states was boosted by black slaves taking over jobs that free whites were paid to do beforehand. And then further amplified on purpose by the slave owners as a way to keep the slaves from getting freed earlier.

It's a lot of work, so I don't blame Toady for not getting into it. Just, if the systems come into place for it as a natural consequence of development, think about it?

The primitives never invented racism when they fought over resources because they seldom fought people who were not closely related to themselves; everyone you are fighting looks just like you do.  Racism is pretty much a modern thing entirely and has to be basically with improvements in naval technology bringing together people's who are not closely related and look different into unequal conflict.  The inequality thing is basically crucial though, racism tends to be more about superiority-inferiority than friendly-hostile.  The white folks become most racist when they conquer all the black folks in Africa (19th Century), because they decide they are superior and 'more advanced' than said folks.  Really most racism is of the superiority-inferiority kind and totally rooted in a mixture of colonial conquest of exotic locales and the accidental correlation of blackness with slavery (so not so complicated).  A more uncommon form of racism is the hostility racism, of which the only real example is antisemitism which sees the other not as stupid degenerates but as a sinister conspiring enemy with power. 

The first kind is related in internal hierarchies to a society (so master-slave, conquerer-conquered) while the latter corresponds to prolonged in-group, out-group conflicts that are not able to be resolved.  Both from a coding level are really matters connected to the ability of the AI to conclude information about an individual based upon secondary traits that do not in themselves inherantly imply the information being deduced.
Logged

Hoshiqua

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #2392 on: September 05, 2017, 11:39:57 am »

Quote
With the current logic pre existing war does not circumvent the siege triggers, so my guess is that nothing is being done to change that. Also note that the retaliatory siege trigger overriding attacks are directed at the offending site, not any random site belonging to the civ. (Possible bug report: "I embarked while at peace with the elves". In the autumn the diplomat came by and told me about a daring artifact raid by a neighbor site, and in winter my fortress was razed by a full scale elven siege"). In my view the only way to get sieged prematurely should be to either bring it in yourself through raids, or by resuming or reclaiming (with reclaiming being dubious) a fortress that already is involved in a site level conflict. It would be useful to get this cleared up by Toady, though.

Sorry if that was answered already, but what happens when you attack a site of your own civilization ? Will you even be able to ? Will it cause your site to be "expelled" from your parent civ ?
Logged

ZM5

  • Bay Watcher
  • Accomplished RAW Engineer
    • View Profile
    • Steam
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #2393 on: September 05, 2017, 12:36:52 pm »

-snip-
Racism definitely isn't a modern thing, as a subset of tribalism. Most people, just like animals, prefer to be with those who are like them - those who don't look like them - wheter it'd be major or minor differences - or "speak funny" would be considered outsiders and wouldn't be welcome, regardless of their intentions. Long-term exposure could definitely prove the "racists" and tribals wrong enough to change their minds, definitely not as impossible as you're making it out to be. On a separate note - outside of that there are tropes like the softer "you're a credit to your race" or "you're good for an X" that are commonplace in settings similar to DF's own.

I have other reservations about what you're saying but I'm gonna end it on this note since it's neither the place nor the time and I don't want to spam this thread more.  :P

Ggobs

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #2394 on: September 05, 2017, 01:28:44 pm »

So far if I want to build or buy some instruments, I have to go through a bit painful process of reading through what each instrument is and what it does. I mean, that is fun and kinda cool, but I would like it a lot if for example there was a (wind), or (string) tag in front of the random name. Would be much quicker and clearer in my opinion.

For now go to craftsworkshop and look up the instruments under the assemble instruments then use the manager to find all of the parts.
Logged
Just popping in to say that if DF has taught me anything, it's that everything is doomed.

PatrikLundell

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #2395 on: September 05, 2017, 01:58:05 pm »

With the current logic pre existing war does not circumvent the siege triggers, so my guess is that nothing is being done to change that. Also note that the retaliatory siege trigger overriding attacks are directed at the offending site, not any random site belonging to the civ. (Possible bug report: "I embarked while at peace with the elves". In the autumn the diplomat came by and told me about a daring artifact raid by a neighbor site, and in winter my fortress was razed by a full scale elven siege"). In my view the only way to get sieged prematurely should be to either bring it in yourself through raids, or by resuming or reclaiming (with reclaiming being dubious) a fortress that already is involved in a site level conflict. It would be useful to get this cleared up by Toady, though.
Toady already said a month or so back that harrasment causes full-scale civ on civ war, not single site on site conflict. So, yeah, if you get that elf report from the diplomat, expect an invasion soon (although npcs probably don't send harassment squads yet).
I suspect you either misunderstood what I tried to say, but we may also actually disagree. What I tried to say was that I think siege triggers remain in force until the player goads other civs into attacking, bypassing them. However, if the civ is already in a conflict when you embark (or enters one during the build up phase of your fortress without you causing it), the siege triggers would still protect that site until it's ripe for attack. I guess we'll have to wait for Toady's answer for the definite word on it, though.
Logged

Shonai_Dweller

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #2396 on: September 05, 2017, 04:24:57 pm »

With the current logic pre existing war does not circumvent the siege triggers, so my guess is that nothing is being done to change that. Also note that the retaliatory siege trigger overriding attacks are directed at the offending site, not any random site belonging to the civ. (Possible bug report: "I embarked while at peace with the elves". In the autumn the diplomat came by and told me about a daring artifact raid by a neighbor site, and in winter my fortress was razed by a full scale elven siege"). In my view the only way to get sieged prematurely should be to either bring it in yourself through raids, or by resuming or reclaiming (with reclaiming being dubious) a fortress that already is involved in a site level conflict. It would be useful to get this cleared up by Toady, though.
Toady already said a month or so back that harrasment causes full-scale civ on civ war, not single site on site conflict. So, yeah, if you get that elf report from the diplomat, expect an invasion soon (although npcs probably don't send harassment squads yet).
I suspect you either misunderstood what I tried to say, but we may also actually disagree. What I tried to say was that I think siege triggers remain in force until the player goads other civs into attacking, bypassing them. However, if the civ is already in a conflict when you embark (or enters one during the build up phase of your fortress without you causing it), the siege triggers would still protect that site until it's ripe for attack. I guess we'll have to wait for Toady's answer for the definite word on it, though.
Yeah, sorry wasn't clear about which bit of your post I was responding to. You mentioned "retaliatory siege trigger overriding attacks directed at the offending site, not any random site belonging to the civ" whereas such 'retaliatory attacks' actually don't seem to exist (just a retaliatory declaration of war). But its a bit unclear what the situation is right now.

Certainly it seems to be just the case that a new flag makes your site lose siege trigger protection if you are the cause of a war.

Guess I'll take it to the suggestions board after the release. With War being warned before you embark, and a map with outpost liaison warnings if your civ is suddenly at war, it would feel more realistic and not too unfair if siege triggers were overridden by war in general. War should make you nervous, right?
Logged

bluephoenix

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #2397 on: September 06, 2017, 12:07:39 am »

Quote
With the current logic pre existing war does not circumvent the siege triggers, so my guess is that nothing is being done to change that. Also note that the retaliatory siege trigger overriding attacks are directed at the offending site, not any random site belonging to the civ. (Possible bug report: "I embarked while at peace with the elves". In the autumn the diplomat came by and told me about a daring artifact raid by a neighbor site, and in winter my fortress was razed by a full scale elven siege"). In my view the only way to get sieged prematurely should be to either bring it in yourself through raids, or by resuming or reclaiming (with reclaiming being dubious) a fortress that already is involved in a site level conflict. It would be useful to get this cleared up by Toady, though.

Sorry if that was answered already, but what happens when you attack a site of your own civilization ? Will you even be able to ? Will it cause your site to be "expelled" from your parent civ ?
Toady said that yes you can attack sites of your own civ, I'm not sure what happens to your status in the civilization though.
Logged

Shonai_Dweller

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #2398 on: September 06, 2017, 12:18:43 am »

Quote
With the current logic pre existing war does not circumvent the siege triggers, so my guess is that nothing is being done to change that. Also note that the retaliatory siege trigger overriding attacks are directed at the offending site, not any random site belonging to the civ. (Possible bug report: "I embarked while at peace with the elves". In the autumn the diplomat came by and told me about a daring artifact raid by a neighbor site, and in winter my fortress was razed by a full scale elven siege"). In my view the only way to get sieged prematurely should be to either bring it in yourself through raids, or by resuming or reclaiming (with reclaiming being dubious) a fortress that already is involved in a site level conflict. It would be useful to get this cleared up by Toady, though.

Sorry if that was answered already, but what happens when you attack a site of your own civilization ? Will you even be able to ? Will it cause your site to be "expelled" from your parent civ ?
Toady said that yes you can attack sites of your own civ, I'm not sure what happens to your status in the civilization though.
No, he didn't. He said specifically no, you can't attack the sites of your own civ. You can attack other dwarf civs though (and mercs don't care if you send them to attack their own civs, apparently).

But, will hit the Google later to see who's right. Perhaps my memory is tricking me.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2017, 12:23:36 am by Shonai_Dweller »
Logged

PatrikLundell

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress
« Reply #2399 on: September 06, 2017, 03:25:08 am »

If you want to be nervous about war you can change the siege pop trigger to 1, which should get you eligible rather quickly unless your civ is dead. Personally I wouldn't mind if you could flip the "let them ignore triggers" flag in the raws (or replace the pop trigger with number, as with the Titan attack trigger). We'll see what Toady cooks up.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 158 159 [160] 161 162 ... 211